Slashdot Mirror
Apple Changes the APSL Rules
aitikin writes "Apple recently changed their license for the OS X kernel. According to semthex's post, Apple has reworded the APSL to prevent him and others from open sourcing the kernel hacking under the APSL:
'This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 2.0 (the 'License'). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. The rights granted to you under the License may not be used to create, or enable the creation or redistribution of, unlawful or unlicensed copies of an Apple operating system, or to circumvent, violate, or enable the circumvention or violation of, any terms of an Apple operating system software license agreement.'"
Apple attempts to plug license hole which was used to circumvent Apple's valid (even if unwelcome) desire to protect own commercial interests. Locals up in arms. Villagers outraged.
I wouldn't exactly call this a non issue but basically you are right I can still develop my little application and I can still screw around with the OS just like I have been. I suppose I won't be able to go out and buy a dual socket motherboard and two of Intel's new quad core chips and gobs of memory and expect to easily or legitimately run Mac OS on it. But I'm fairly sure that does not impinge on my liberty or my human rights.
Nice bad analogy... btw.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
The key difference being, those who choose (notice the emphasis on choose) to run OS X to fulfill their computer needs enjoy their experience. I support Apple because I think OS X kicks ass, and have no trouble paying to enable further development of a solid OS and cool hardware. Seeing teenagers download my favorite OS for free, or seeing the experience cheapened in the eyes of others because its running on unsupported hardware bothers me.
And Microsoft already does do this; last time I checked I couldn't recompile XP to run on my PPC PowerMac. None of Microsoft's licenses are even close to open source, while a number of Apple's key technology are.
Yeah, why doesn't Apple just release its kernel under the GPL like Microsoft? Oh wait.
They're being pretty damn generous even letting you see the source code. If you don't like the license, don't view the source, it's not necissary.
Apple is not a software company. They write software - some of it quite good - but they are a hardware company. At this point, they are phenomenally profitable for a PC vendor, and probably care little about trying to achieve profitability down the road-less-traveled. Arguing that Apple should open source their operating system is like arguing that one of the car manufacturers should open up their engine-control software - it removes a core advantage of their hardware and makes you less likely to buy it. If you are tired of car analogies, use Boeing's flight control software or IBM's mainframe code.
Now if you want to argue that it is in Apple's best interest to become a software company, you'd have plenty of company. Personally, I think it would be nuts to try to compete with Microsoft and all of the various UNIX-type OSes out there.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Apple's licensing is from an age that has (thankfully) passed us by: the age of proprietary software.
What color are the little elves and pixies on your planet? Are they friendly?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So far Apple has done open source as a publicity stunt
Linux weenies consistently miss the point of Darwin. It's not another BSD distro, it's ther for the convenience of Mac developers who have to work with kernel code, such as driver writers and third-party hardware manufacturers.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
My little sister's a whore. But it's not too late to keep my OS pure. It's all I've got left.
This
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it?
I won't argue the accuracy of your statement because it is irrelevant, but I think it important to answer your question. The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Once you pay for a product, according to first sale law, you are permitted to make modifications to it.
The DMCA prohibits most reverse engineering, except that which is done for the purposes of interoperability. While this does not involve reverse engineering (the code is provided) I feel that this indicates a legal attitude that interoperability is valuable and protected.
Making the software run on hardware not approved by Apple is an interoperability issue.
Running the software on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the license.
A kernel patch that would allow the software to run on non-Apple hardware would seem to provide only interoperability, and would seem to be valid under first sale law, which protects your rights to make modifications to things which you have purchased.
Apple is both relying on the legal validity of a shrink-wrap license which you do not sign, AND doing all they can to take away your first sale rights.
Apple is seeking to separate you from your rights. This is wrong no matter what you say about it. Apple is also strengthening the validity of the shrinkwrap license if they pull this off, which benefits no user.
If you accept this kind of behavior from Apple, they will continue to step on your rights.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"